Sweeney v. Director

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2161 GLADYS SWEENEY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. ____________________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ____________________ Marcia J. Cleveland on brief for petitioner. Richard F. van Antwerp, Thomas R. Kelly and Robinson, Kriger, McCallum on brief for respondent Bath Iron Works Corporation. Stephen Hessert , Elizabeth M. Brogan and Norman, Hanson & DeTroy on brief for respondents, Bath Iron Works Corporation and Commercial Union Insurance Company. Nelson J. Larkins and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios , on brief for respondents Bath Iron Works Corporation and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company. ____________________ August 22, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam . Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that the administrative law judge correctly determined that during the relevant period petitioner was not engaged in "maritime employment" covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. S 902(3). That determination is not undermined by the fact that petitioner cleaned offices occupied by persons who may have been engaged in "maritime employment" covered under the Act. Petitioner's own duties did not have the requisite maritime characteristics. See Graziano v. General Dynamics Corp. , 663 F.2d 340, 343 (1st Cir. 1981); Dravo Corp. v. Banks, 567 F.2d 593, 595 (3rd Cir. 1977). Petitioner's additional arguments regarding her former status and gender bias are meritless. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. -2-